Holy fucking shit. Do you even take a minute to think before you post your remarks? How incredibly lame it is for you to kneejerk this into a readymade script.

Viz.:

"John Kerry: Botox or Not?"

It was in ALL the papers.

...we judged political candidates based on looks: if that were the case, most of the GOP house members would be looking for other work, starting with Dennis Hastert.

People who say the Current Occupant is "handsome" seem to me to be taste-challenged in a major way. By any conventional measure of attractiveness, GW Bush falls somewhere between an exceptionally ugly mule, and a deformed chimpanzee. If GW is the Heartland's idea of an attractive male, no wonder that all the people there seem so desperately homely...at best. He seems attractive to them, on their scale of attractiveness, I guess.

Actually, I've thought for some time now that it would be salutary if all political candidates campaigned with no clothes on at all. None. Imagine that. Be interesting to see who'd run our country then...a bunch of weight-lifting narcissists probably. A Congress of Arnolds. Hard to imagine that would be worse than what we've had lately, though.

...I do wish Sen. Clinton would ditch those boring black pantsuits and re-acquaint herself with the boldly colored skirt suits that she wore so well during her First Lady years. Yes, a woman CAN wear yellow and be taken seriously!

Well, yes, we have been known to judge male candidates on their looks. In fact, leading up to the 2004 election, there was all the speculation that Kerry/Edwards would win because they had better hair.

As I recall, those were Kerry's words. But, going back to the beginning of televised debates -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- we find that by and large, the presidential candidate with the "better hair" has won nearly every election, with the exception of 2004.

So, while obviously Spencer's remarks are hideous, yes, it works both ways.

hearing about how cute George W Bush is to the female voters. I recall reading how handsome Bill Clinton is, even though he is pudgy. Plus I do recall the Kerry Botox stories.

Males are always, always going to look at a woman's attractiveness and judge it.

Women are always, always going to look at a man's attractiveness and judge it.

I've read plenty of articles stating that if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he wouldn't have a shot in hell at the presidency because of how homely and gangly he was.

Lets stop pretending that only men are affected by people's degree of beauty and that women never ever judge men by their looks. My heart skips a beat every time I see that damn boring ass Tom Welling on Smallville, I even watched that crappy movie the Fog because he's in it. I know that he isn't very bright and all his interviews he's as dull as dishwater but I can't help but look at that face and wonder if there is a god.

Do I think H. Clinton is pretty, no, no I don't, but that isn't the reason I wouldn't vote for her. Just like objectively George Bush is more attractive to me than John Kerry, but that didn't mean I was going to ignore what a dumbass Bush is and so I voted for Kerry. It's one thing to have a preference or judgement regarding someone's appearance, the problem only arises when voting becomes a popularity contest where the richest, funnest and prettiest win and who they are as a politician is totally overlooked.

Plus women are all about decoration, we're the primary decorators, clothes purchasers in a household. This isn't to say men (gay or straight) don't have taste or care about their decorative surroundings, but it's really not something men that don't have lots of extra spending cash discuss. Women just overall seem to be more into clothes, make-up, hair and discussing it as a topic opposed to men, because, really what is there to say? They pretty much all have the same haircut, wear the same types of suits and no make-up at least in buisness or political settings. What's there to say, oh that Brooks brother number is more suited to him than the Armani? Women's adornments are a double edged sword, while we are lucky to have so many options when it comes to clothes, hair, make-up, it will be talked about because we have choices to make, pants or skirt, blouse or pullover, heels or flats, lots of make-up, little make-up, hair up, hair down, so it's talked about because there are so many options for women to choose from. There is so much to do to ourselves if we want, we can hide our bad skin, make our eyes and lips look bigger or smaller, use our hair to make us look younger or older. Is it any wonder that it gets talked about?

Personally, I thnk HC had a little work done right before she ran for Senator. A brow lift or eye lift or something small like that - she was looking remarkably 'refreshed' around then, and had that strange round-eyed look that Michael Douglas, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone and Clint Eastwood all had immediately post-surgery. CEOs do it all the time - I know of two, verifiably and personally. When you're in the public eye, and/or having your face projected onto 20 foot high video walls or movie screens, I suppose natural to want to look your best. For some, this means smoother. It's really no big deal - I'm sure most of them think of it as a business decision akin to what style of clothes to wear or what kind of car to drive - whatever projects the image they want to project for their careers.

The issue here isn't did she or did she not have plastic surgery...but the whole smarmy adolescent 'why would Bill marry her?' This presumes that how attractive other men find your wife should be the sole criteria on which to select a partner. Are men really this insecure that they so desire to provoke envy among their peers they are willing to commit themslves for life to a woman whose looks fir the bill, regardless of how interesting or otrherwise compatible she is with his goals, values and self? Wow. Sad.

Someone famous (I can't remember now, but it made headlines) made the same remark about Prince Charles with Camilla Bowles, saying he could have 'anyone he wanted', why pick a woman with a 'face like a horse' . I guess that guy didn't take a real close look at Charlie, whose wealth and privelege are not enough to make me not notice that he is homely, homely, homely.

What IS it with men wondering aloud why some rich/powerful/famous males actually want, you know, partners and not just arm candy? I can see why Bill was attracted to Hillary - he wanted to be accepted by the intelligentsia. Hillary was an intellectual ball of fire, a mover and a shaker. Her valedictory speech drew a standing ovation. She was and is a high wattage braniac, and that turns Bill on. What's to question?

A